Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[Dos Equis]

Even if that is the case, that still doesn't make morality immutable and universal, which is what you said:

You are, essentially, saying "This is universally immoral. Therefore, morality is universal and immutable." This is a logical fallacy known as an "irrelevant conclusion."

You are also making two very big assumptions: The first is that these acts are universally considered immoral; in many cultures today, rape isn't seen as immoral, since women are seen as sexual toys. The second assumption, on top of the first, is that they always have been and that just isn't the case. For example, many cultures disposed of mentally or physically disabled infants.

You can argue that those acts are wrong today and were wrong millenia ago, it's just that humanity wasn't as morally evolved then. But that makes my point all the more salient: morality is a set of codes undergoing constant change. I can certainly agree that a kind of "ideal" universal morality might be possible in the sense that once you take everything the answer depends on and consider it a part of the question, the answer is necessarily inherent in the question.

In other words if you could somehow include everything that morality can depend on, perhaps you could define an "ideal" universal and immutable morality. But can you do that? It's a very big if.

Yes, it is "immutable" and "universal," regardless of whether some cultures are bass-akwards.  Child rape is immoral.  There was never a time earth's history when it was moral, regardless of whether people did it.  It's an accepted part of some parts of Muslim culture, but it's still immoral.  Wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter whether some people get it twisted. 

[Dos Equis]

The difference is they are victims by choice.  For example if someone wants to do meth, they do it by choice.  If someone gets raped its not by choice.  Of course meth is bad for you, but so are cigarettes, transfat, too much salt etc.

A victim by choice is still a victim.

[OzmO]

A victim by choice is still a victim.

That's where the line is.  Choice. 

[Dos Equis]

That's where the line is.  Choice. 

Wait.  What are we talking about?  lol   

[avxo]

Yes, it is "immutable" and "universal," regardless of whether some cultures are bass-akwards.  Child rape is immoral.  There was never a time earth's history when it was moral, regardless of whether people did it.  It's an accepted part of some parts of Muslim culture, but it's still immoral.  Wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter whether some people get it twisted.

Even if that was the case - all you've shown is that child rape is immoral. Not that morality itself is immutable or universal. Please don't misunderstand: I agree that child rape is immoral and heinous. And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?

Consider, for example, the following: after years of painstaking work, someone finally manages to create a sentient computer program. Unfortunately, the program cannot be stopped, as it will not function again; realizing this the sentient program resists efforts to terminate its execution. Is it moral for us to unplug the computer and kill the program?  What does your universal and immutable morality have to say about this and how does it square with the property right of the person on whose computer the sentient program is executing?

And since you seem to talk with such moral certainty, I'm curious, how exactly do you define right and wrong? Surely if morality is absolute you should have no problem with this question. Please don't give me examples of what's right and wrong. I want specific, concrete definitions, that I can apply to any instance and which will determine whether an action is right or wrong without fail.

I'm not sure there are victimless sins?  The individual always harms himself in some way.

According to Catholic doctrine, artificial birth control is a sin. So under Catholic doctrine, a Catholic husband who has sex with his wife and wears a condom is committing a sin. Is the husband harmed? Is the wife harmed? Who is the victim here?

Or, better still, consider the following example: a newlywed couple moves into the house next door. You happen to be coming back from the gym, and catch a glimpse of the wife. You find her extremely attractive. In the shower, you jerk off thinking about fucking her, but you never make a move on her. You have coveted your neighbor's wife. Who is the victim, who has been harmed and how?

[Dos Equis]

Even if that was the case - all you've shown is that child rape is immoral. Not that morality itself is immutable or universal. Please don't misunderstand: I agree that child rape is immoral and heinous. And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?

Consider, for example, the following: after years of painstaking work, someone finally manages to create a sentient computer program. Unfortunately, the program cannot be stopped, as it will not function again; realizing this the sentient program resists efforts to terminate its execution. Is it moral for us to unplug the computer and kill the program?  What does your universal and immutable morality have to say about this and how does it square with the property right of the person on whose computer the sentient program is executing?

And since you seem to talk with such moral certainty, I'm curious, how exactly do you define right and wrong? Surely if morality is absolute you should have no problem with this question. Please don't give me examples of what's right and wrong. I want specific, concrete definitions, that I can apply to any instance and which will determine whether an action is right or wrong without fail.


According to Catholic doctrine, artificial birth control is a sin. So under Catholic doctrine, a Catholic husband who has sex with his wife and wears a condom is committing a sin. Is the husband harmed? Is the wife harmed? Who is the victim here?

Or, better still, consider the following example: a newlywed couple moves into the house next door. You happen to be coming back from the gym, and catch a glimpse of the wife. You find her extremely attractive. In the shower, you jerk off thinking about fucking her, but you never make a move on her. You have coveted your neighbor's wife. Who is the victim, who has been harmed and how?

You're talking about of both sides of your mouth.  Child rape is immoral because it's wrong.  You agree it's wrong, but in the next breath say morality cannot be immutable or universal.  So which is it?  

Child rape isn't wrong because "pretty much everyone agrees" it's wrong.  It's immoral because, based on your common sense, a reasonable person knows it's wrong to harm a child.  And you don't need the Bible or some philosopher to tell you that.  As Drinking with Bob says, it's "common freaking sense."  Same with the other things I mentioned:  child abuse, elder abuse, etc.  You don't want to talk about those, because you know there isn't a reasonable argument to say it is not flat out wrong (or immoral) to abuse an elderly person, a disabled person, etc.

You'd rather bring up a "sentient computer program."  I have no idea what that is.  

I'm not a moral skeptic.  Most people are not.  When you start talking about things that are unquestionably immoral, like child rape, skepticism disappears.  Except for people who belong to NAMBLA . . . .

There are things that fall into gray areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are absolutes.  You just agreed with one.  

Regarding victims, anytime a person does something that violates that person's conscience, they have compromised their belief system.  There doesn't have to be some physical manifestation of "harm."  What could (and probably often does) happen is rationalization, which leads to more compromise.    

[avxo]

You're talking about of both sides of your mouth.  Child rape is immoral because it's wrong.  You agree it's wrong, but in the next breath say morality cannot be immutable or universal.  So which is it?

A single instance of something being wrong doesn't make morality at large immutable or universal. It's like saying "I don't like pork. Pork is meat. Therefore I don't like meat."

Child rape isn't wrong because "pretty much everyone agrees" it's wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong because pretty much everyone agrees its wrong. I said that pretty much everyone agrees it's wrong.

It's immoral because, based on your common sense, a reasonable person knows it's wrong to harm a child.

Why? Why is it wrong to harm a child? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it. What's the inherent reason that makes you say that it's wrong to harm a child? There's a ton of things you could give as the reason. I want to understand what your understanding of morality is, and what causes you to say it's absolute and immutable.

Same with the other things I mentioned:  child abuse, elder abuse, etc.  You don't want to talk about those, because you know there isn't a reasonable argument to say it is not flat out wrong (or immoral) to abuse an elderly person, a disabled person, etc.

No, that's not why. It's because if we use examples where the answer is clear-cut, we gain little insight. But if you insist, I can play the devil's advocate. I'll start right now: Abusing elders is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. Why is this stand immoral?

I'm not a moral skeptic.  Most people are not.  When you start talking about things that are unquestionably immoral, like child rape, skepticism disappears.  Except for people who belong to NAMBLA . . . .

Right. And that's why I wanted to use other examples. I stated it pretty clearly: "And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?"

There are things that fall into gray areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are absolutes.  You just agreed with one.

If there are gray areas, then morality cannot be absolute because a single instance of an item that falls in this gray area makes morality non-absolute. For morality to be absolute there must not be any grey areas at all and everything must be clearly either moral or immoral. In more mathematical terms, given the equation "x / x = 1" the answer "x = 0" is enough to show that it isn't true; to show that it's true, it's not enough to say "well, it's valid for 1 and 2 and 3 and ... 541894891894501041487956 67 and 541894891894501041487956 68 and ...". You must show that's it's true for EVERY number.

Now, what I agreed with is that pretty much everyone finds certain acts to be immoral and heinous. That's a fact, but that doesn't make morality itself absolute. See the "x / x = 1" example above of why it doesn't.

As for those who don't find those acts immoral and heinous - sometimes it is because they are insane and other times because their particular morality is different somehow. Let's ignore the people who are insane, since there's no point in discussing about them. Let's talk about the other group. Consider a group of people, who have, for all their recorded history, gathered all the males of age and had them engage in fights to the death to decide who will marry the chief's daughter and become the new Chief. The daughter has no say in the matter. And how many immoral acts do you see with this setup? And why are they immoral?

Regarding victims, anytime a person does something that violates that person's conscience, they have compromised their belief system.  There doesn't have to be some physical manifestation of "harm."  What could (and probably often does) happen is rationalization, which leads to more compromise.

Now who's talking out of both sides of the mouth? You said there's no victimless sins, now you're talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it?

And to take one more step: are all sinful acts immoral? And, conversely, are all immoral acts sins?

[OzmO]

Wait.  What are we talking about?  lol   

lol   (i know you are getting it from a couple other directions now)  We were talking the line between what is moral and what is not as it relates to sin.  My contention is that using the victim principle, morality in most cases, is easily defined.  I think your argument is that morality is defined in the bible.  Not sure, its been a few days   

[garebear]

If the bible teaches morality, then why do Christians ignore some of it?

If you ignore parts of the bible, then you are obviously using a higher moral code to interpret what is acceptable.

If you really believed the bible, you would own slaves and beat them, as long as they didn't die within one day.

[OzmO]

If the bible teaches morality, then why do Christians ignore some of it?

Christians aren't perfect but they are forgiven

If you ignore parts of the bible, then you are obviously using a higher moral code to interpret what is acceptable.

Don't know what you mean here

If you really believed the bible, you would own slaves and beat them, as long as they didn't die within one day.

They weren't slaves, they were people who owed money.  god would never condone slavery, hence when you read the word slave in the bible you really didn't read the word slave.

[avxo]

Christians aren't perfect but they are forgiven

That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.

Don't know what you mean here

Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?

god would never condone slavery

No, of course not... God would never condone slav...

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46

Oh!

[garebear]

That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.

Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?


No, of course not... God would never condone slav...

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46

Oh!

This

[Dos Equis]

lol   (i know you are getting it from a couple other directions now)  We were talking the line between what is moral and what is not as it relates to sin.  My contention is that using the victim principle, morality in most cases, is easily defined.  I think your argument is that morality is defined in the bible.  Not sure, its been a few days   

Ah so.  Thanks.  I didn't say morality is defined in the Bible.  Or at least I don't think I said that.  lol

I think my point was/is that things that are immoral are always immoral.  That's different from laws, cultural practices, etc.  Not everything that is illegal is immoral. 

[Dos Equis]

A single instance of something being wrong doesn't make morality at large immutable or universal. It's like saying "I don't like pork. Pork is meat. Therefore I don't like meat."


I didn't say it was wrong because pretty much everyone agrees its wrong. I said that pretty much everyone agrees it's wrong.


Why? Why is it wrong to harm a child? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it. What's the inherent reason that makes you say that it's wrong to harm a child? There's a ton of things you could give as the reason. I want to understand what your understanding of morality is, and what causes you to say it's absolute and immutable.



No, that's not why. It's because if we use examples where the answer is clear-cut, we gain little insight. But if you insist, I can play the devil's advocate. I'll start right now: Abusing elders is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. Why is this stand immoral?


Right. And that's why I wanted to use other examples. I stated it pretty clearly: "And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?"


If there are gray areas, then morality cannot be absolute because a single instance of an item that falls in this gray area makes morality non-absolute. For morality to be absolute there must not be any grey areas at all and everything must be clearly either moral or immoral. In more mathematical terms, given the equation "x / x = 1" the answer "x = 0" is enough to show that it isn't true; to show that it's true, it's not enough to say "well, it's valid for 1 and 2 and 3 and ... 541894891894501041487956 67 and 541894891894501041487956 68 and ...". You must show that's it's true for EVERY number.

Now, what I agreed with is that pretty much everyone finds certain acts to be immoral and heinous. That's a fact, but that doesn't make morality itself absolute. See the "x / x = 1" example above of why it doesn't.

As for those who don't find those acts immoral and heinous - sometimes it is because they are insane and other times because their particular morality is different somehow. Let's ignore the people who are insane, since there's no point in discussing about them. Let's talk about the other group. Consider a group of people, who have, for all their recorded history, gathered all the males of age and had them engage in fights to the death to decide who will marry the chief's daughter and become the new Chief. The daughter has no say in the matter. And how many immoral acts do you see with this setup? And why are they immoral?


Now who's talking out of both sides of the mouth? You said there's no victimless sins, now you're talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it?

And to take one more step: are all sinful acts immoral? And, conversely, are all immoral acts sins?

Dude.  There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked.  I have internet ADD.  Why don't you give my your top three?  lol

[Mr. Magoo]

And I thought I took arguing on the internet too seriously haha

surprised to see this thread still going

[OzmO]

That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.

Its reality, they can and will sin, but because they have accepted the spirit of Christ as savior, they are saved in spite of their sin.  Something like this cant be faked. 

Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?

Every religion does this. 

No, of course not... God would never condone slav...

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46

Oh!

See?  no word "slave" any where. 

[OzmO]

Ah so.  Thanks.  I didn't say morality is defined in the Bible.  Or at least I don't think I said that.  lol

I think my point was/is that things that are immoral are always immoral.  That's different from laws, cultural practices, etc.  Not everything that is illegal is immoral. 

I remember now (looked at past post) you said you didn't think there was such a thing as victimless sins.  and you didn't think morality changed with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.

I agree for the most part but the real question is, are all sins immoral?

[avxo]

See?  no word "slave" any where. 

You're right. Just the word "property" and "forever." Does it feel safe, hiding there, behind your finger?

[Dos Equis]

I remember now (looked at past post) you said you didn't think there was such a thing as victimless sins.  and you didn't think morality changed with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.

I agree for the most part but the real question is, are all sins immoral?

Never really thought about that, but I say probably not.  I don't think all sin is equal.  This puts me at odds with the Bible and many (if not most) Christians, but not every sin is treated the same in the Bible.  I think it's similar to violations of city ordinances, speeding tickets, misdemeanors, and felonies.  All may be considered breaking the law, but they're not treated the same. 

Now don't ask me for a list, because I haven't thought about that.   

[Skeletor]

Dude.  There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked.  I have internet ADD.  Why don't you give my your top three?  lol

Ownage of biblical proportions..

[OzmO]

Never really thought about that, but I say probably not.  I don't think all sin is equal.  This puts me at odds with the Bible and many (if not most) Christians, but not every sin is treated the same in the Bible.  I think it's similar to violations of city ordinances, speeding tickets, misdemeanors, and felonies.  All may be considered breaking the law, but they're not treated the same. 

Now don't ask me for a list, because I haven't thought about that.   

I find it hard to see how killing someone could be the same sin as adultery or eating shrimp.  Making All sins the same somehow in my mind devalues life over supreme obdience.

The next question would be where does homosexuality rate?

[avxo]

Dude.  There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked.  I have internet ADD.  Why don't you give my your top three?  lol

OK. As I said before, I'll play the devil's advocate, so buckle up. Here we go:

You assert that it's immoral to harm a child. Why? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it; there must be some iron-clad, inherent reason that makes harming a child immoral, so what is it?

I assert that killing off those who are of a certain age (say 70) is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. I assume you would agree this qualifies as abuse, which you said is immoral, Why is this position immoral?

You also said there's no victimless sins, but you've switched and are talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim?

And, if you don't mind indulging me just a little longer: Is it your contention that all sinful acts immoral, and conversely, that all immoral acts sins?

[Dos Equis]

OK. As I said before, I'll play the devil's advocate, so buckle up. Here we go:

You assert that it's immoral to harm a child. Why? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it; there must be some iron-clad, inherent reason that makes harming a child immoral, so what is it?

I assert that killing off those who are of a certain age (say 70) is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. I assume you would agree this qualifies as abuse, which you said is immoral, Why is this position immoral?

You also said there's no victimless sins, but you've switched and are talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim?

And, if you don't mind indulging me just a little longer: Is it your contention that all sinful acts immoral, and conversely, that all immoral acts sins?

What I said is morality doesn't change over time, or least it should not.  There are certain things that are immoral, regardless of whether societal norms change, and regardless of the passage of time.  Regarding whether abusing a child is immoral, what exactly are you asking me??  You agree it's immoral.  You tell me why that is?  For me, it's common sense.  I can't point you to some book or philosopher.  If you're looking for some wordy sophisticated response, I can't help.  In fact, it's sort of a "duh" response.  Abusing a child is immoral, because it is.

Your position that we should murder the elderly is immoral because murder is immoral.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Why?  Common sense.  I don't need a book or philosopher to tell me that.  Do you?  Sounds like it.  

You need to go back and look at what I said about victimless sins.  I said I don't think there are victimless sins, because sin always harms the individual.  The individual is always one of the victims.  I already talked about how doing something that only involves yourself requires you to violate your conscience, which leads to compromise, which can lead to further conduct that harms the individual, and others.  And from a religious standpoint, it makes sense, because acts that eventually harm others start in a man's heart.  Thoughts lead to action, action leads to consequences.  

[avxo]

What I said is morality doesn't change over time, or least it should not.  There are certain things that are immoral, regardless of whether societal norms change, and regardless of the passage of time.  Regarding whether abusing a child is immoral, what exactly are you asking me??  You agree it's immoral.  You tell me why that is?  For me, it's common sense.  I can't point you to some book or philosopher.  If you're looking some wordy sophisticated response, I can't help.  In fact, it's sort of a "duh" response.  Abusing a child is immoral, because it is.

No, see, "common sense" isn't an answer. And if it really is common sense, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the underlying reason that makes it immoral. After all, it's common sense!

Your position that we should murder the elderly is immoral because murder is immoral.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Why?  Common sense.  I don't need a book or philosopher to tell me that.  Do you?  Sounds like it.

Again with this common sense - that's not an answer. I'm asking you what the time is, and you're answering "potato." Why would a society that sets maximum age limits be immoral? I want to know your specific, underlying reasons. Surely you should be able to come up with something beyond "it's common sense." You say it would be "murder" but murder is a killing that is both premeditated and unlawful and in the society that enforces maximum age limits, the killing would not only be lawful, it would be specifically required by law.

You need to go back and look at what I said about victimless sins.  I said I don't think there are victimless sins, because sin always harms the individual.  The individual is always one of the victims.  I already talked about how doing something that only involves yourself requires you to violate your conscience, which leads to compromise, which can lead to further conduct that harms the individual, and others.  And from a religious standpoint, it makes sense, because acts that eventually harm others start in a man's heart.  Thoughts lead to action, action leads to consequences. 

No, I understood you before: you're basically arguing that even if you freely choose to do something, you're 'violating' your conscience, making it (and by extent you) the victim. I just think that it is a rather specious argument: if you freely and without compulsion choose to do something, you aren't violating your conscience.

[Dos Equis]

No, see, "common sense" isn't an answer. And if it really is common sense, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the underlying reason that makes it immoral. After all, it's common sense!


Again with this common sense - that's not an answer. I'm asking you what the time is, and you're answering "potato." Why would a society that sets maximum age limits be immoral? I want to know your specific, underlying reasons. Surely you should be able to come up with something beyond "it's common sense." You say it would be "murder" but murder is a killing that is both premeditated and unlawful and in the society that enforces maximum age limits, the killing would not only be lawful, it would be specifically required by law.


No, I understood you before: you're basically arguing that even if you freely choose to do something, you're 'violating' your conscience, making it (and by extent you) the victim. I just think that it is a rather specious argument: if you freely and without compulsion choose to do something, you aren't violating your conscience.

Regarding child abuse, common sense is my answer.  You don't accept it.  That's your prerogative. 

Same with murder of the elderly.  We're not talking about whether something is illegal.  Things that are illegal are not always immoral.  You say it's not immoral to murder the elderly.  I say it is.  My rationale is common sense.  That's all I got for you.  Take it or leave it.   

Regarding the individual as the victim, it's not a specious argument to me.  I actually like it.     What's specious, IMO, is saying doing something "freely and without compulsion" isn't violating your conscience.  Most acts are done "freely and without compulsion," good, bad, or indifferent.  And they all have consequences that are good, bad, or indifferent.  If a person believes he should not engage in certain conduct as a matter of conscience, but "freely" engages in that conduct anyway, of course he's violating his own belief system.